Docket: 2007-4090(OAS)
BETWEEN:
YVON PARIS,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard
on March 13, 2008, at Sherbrooke,
Quebec
Before: The Honourable
Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Stéphanie Côté
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under
subsection 28(2) of the Old Age Security Act from a decision of the
Minister of Social Development dated May 16, 2006, for the payment
period from June 2005 to May 2006, for the 2005 base calendar year, is dismissed
without costs in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada,
this 16th day of April 2008.
"Alain Tardif"
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of May 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Docket: 2007-4091(OAS)
BETWEEN:
NICOLE GAGNÉ,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on March 13, 2008, at Sherbrooke, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice Alain Tardif
Appearances:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Stéphanie Côté
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal under
subsection 28(2) of the Old Age Security Act from a decision of the
Minister of Social Development dated May 16, 2006, for the payment
period from June 2005 to May 2006, for the 2005 base calendar year,
is dismissed without costs in accordance with the attached Reasons for
Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16th day of April 2008.
"Alain Tardif"
Translation certified true
on this 29th day of May 2008.
Brian McCordick, Translator
Citation: 2008TCC213
Date: 20080416
Dockets: 2007-4090(OAS)
2007-4091(OAS)
BETWEEN:
YVON PARIS,
NICOLE GAGNÉ,
Appellants,
and
THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1] These are two
appeals under sections 2, 14, 19 and 22 and paragraph 18(a) of the
Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O‑9 ("the
Act").
[2] The issues for
determination are whether the Minister of Social Development
("the Minister"),
(a)
in
the appeal of Yvon Paris, 2007-4090(OAS), correctly calculated the amount of
the monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement to which the Appellant was entitled
under the Act, and
(b)
in
the appeal of Nicole Gagné, 2007‑4091(OAS), correctly calculated the
amount of the Appellant's allowance under the Act.
[3] The facts in
support of the decisions under appeal are as follows:
In the appeal of Yvon
Paris, 2007-4090(OAS):
[TRANSLATION]
(a) On March 22,
2005, the Appellant signed a form entitled "Statement of Estimated
Income after Retirement or Reduction in Retirement Income –Year 2005"
("the election") so that his Guaranteed Income Supplement would be
revised based on his estimated income for the year 2005.
(b) On that form,
he reported a monthly pension of $616.05 from the Québec Pension Plan
(QPP).
(c) He also
reported receiving $3,000 per month from a Registered Retirement Income Fund
(RRIF) and stated that payments in respect of that RRIF would be ending on May 16, 2005.
(d) The Appellant
reported no other amounts of money for 2005 in his election.
(e) In April 2005, the
Minister calculated the amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement to
which the Appellant would be entitled from June 2005 to May 2006.
(f) In his
calculations, the Minister took into account the monthly QPP pension that the
Appellant would be receiving during the year 2005, as well as his spouse's
income.
(g) In May 2006, the
Minister received the information from the Canada Revenue Agency
concerning the Appellant's 2005 income tax return.
(h) The Minister
noticed that, in addition to the QPP pensions referred to in the election, the
Appellant received $1,311 from a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP).
(i) On May 16,
2006, the Minister accordingly reduced the amount of the Guaranteed Income
Supplement to which the Appellant was entitled based on the RRSP received in
2005.
In the appeal of Nicole
Gagné, 2007-4091(OAS):
(a) On
March 22, 2005, Yvon Paris, the Appellant Nicole
Gagné's spouse, signed a form entitled "Statement of Estimated Income after Retirement or
Reduction in Retirement Income –Year 2005" ("the election")
in which he reported his estimated income for the year 2005.
(b) On this form, Mr.
Paris reported a monthly pension of $616.05 from the Québec Pension Plan.
(c) He also
reported receiving $3,000 a month from a Registered Retirement Income Fund
(RRIF) and stated that payments in respect of that RRIF would be ending on May
16, 2005.
(d) The Appellant
reported no other amounts of money for 2005 in his election.
(e) In April 2005,
the Minister calculated the Appellant's allowance for the period from June 2005
to May 2006 based in part on Mr. Paris's income as estimated in the election.
(f) In May 2006, the
Minister received the information from the Canada Revenue Agency
concerning Mr. Paris's 2005 income tax return.
(g) The Minister
noticed that the Appellant received $1,311 from a Registered Retirement Savings
Plan (RRSP).
(h)
Mr. Paris had not
mentioned this source of income in his election.
(i)
On May 16, 2006, the Minister accordingly reduced the amount of the
allowance to which the Appellant Ms. Gagné was entitled based on the RRSP
received by Mr. Paris in 2005.
[4] The only person who
testified was the Appellant Mr. Paris. He was so bitter and aggressive that I
had to intervene very firmly several times.
[5] It appears that the
Appellants understood absolutely nothing about the processing of their files. At
the Respondent's request, the proceedings were suspended for the purpose of
holding discussions to enable the Appellants to better understand and, above
all, better explain themselves and better challenge the decisions, with which
they clearly disagreed.
[6] Despite this
suspension, it appears that the explanations that they were given did not make
the slightest difference in the stance taken by the Appellants, whose vigorous
challenge was based on an assertion that blatant errors were made in their
regard.
[7] The explanations
that the Appellants provided were in no way relevant to their challenge.
[8] The Respondent, for
his part, explained the decision under appeal very well. Despite his clarity
and the clarifications that he provided, the Appellants responded with
irrelevant comments and continued to claim that the people responsible for
their files misunderstood them and made blatant mistakes.
[9] In my opinion, given
its technical and even mathematical dimensions, it would not be helpful to
repeat the information provided by the Respondent.
[10] Suffice it to say
that the Appellants made choices about the tax treatment of their respective
files and that these choices led to what were essentially mathematical
exercises.
[11] The process that the
Respondent followed complied with the relevant provisions of the Act in every
respect. Despite the Appellants' vehement assertions that the Respondent made
blatant mistakes that were prejudicial to them, they never explained what
these mistakes were.
[12] In closing, I
believe that a consultation with a resource person would provide the Appellants
with the benefit of a straightforward and accessible explanation of the
requirements and consequences of the relevant provisions of the Act.
[13] The provisions of
the Act are clear and precise and leave no room for interpretation. Moreover,
the Appellants provided no elements, explanations or evidence showing that
their appeals have merit.
[14] Consequently, the
appeals are dismissed without costs.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 16th day of April 2008.
"Alain Tardif"
Translation certified
true
on this 29th day of May
2008.
Brian McCordick,
Translator
Email this Content